Guide for the evaluator
Evaluations must be conducted in an impartial and confidential way. The evaluator must communicate to the Editor any conflict of personal, academic, work or any other interest in relation to the work to be evaluated.
In order to avoid prolonging the evaluation process longer than necessary, the reviewer must submit his report within a period of no more than one month from the receipt of the article. In the same way, it will confirm if the evaluator accepts or declines to perform the evaluation as soon as possible, once the manuscript is receipt, to wait for the report or assign another reviewer.
Evaluations will be sent via the Cuestionario de Evaluación en línea . This questionnaire must include the reasons for the review, whether favorable or not. The way to expose them, can be with one or more of the following modalities:
a) comments for the authorb) comments for the editor
c) notes on the manuscript
In the case of choosing a) and / or c), it is requested to omit the name of the reviewer.
Once the evaluations have been received, the evaluations will be analyzed by the Editor and the Editorial Council and the decision on the publication of the manuscript will be made considering the comments of all the evaluators. The peer reviewers should bear in mind that other reviewers of the same manuscript may have different opinions and even contrary to their own observations, so the Editor will have to make the final decision based on all the evaluations.
The Editor reserves the right to modify the evaluation reports, when necessary, only to avoid revealing information about the identity of the evaluator.
About the quality of the manuscript
In order to ease the job, some important points are suggested to the evaluator:1. The title must be short and descriptive of the research presented.
2. The summary in both English and Spanish should coincide in a briefly and clearly manner describe the reasons for the study, the methods and tests, the results and the conclusions.
3. Regarding the originality or innovation of the research, it is especially requested to evaluate if the proposal is not a new version of works already published with similar methods, development and / or conclusions. The research can be a continuation of previous investigations, as long as the material does not coincide in more than 40%.
4. The manuscript must have a usefulness or aspects of interest to the community. Please indicate what is the main achievement of the work.
5. The organization of the work must be clear and logical.
6. Validity of the methods used. The methods should be described in detail to allow a reader familiar with the subject, can repeat them, likewise should be evaluated if the measurements made were sufficient.
7. Usefulness of the illustrations and / or charts used. The footers of charts and / or illustrations should describe what they present and should be referenced in the text.
8. The language should be clear even for readers who are not experts in the subject. The assumption that the terms are known in the field should be avoided.
9. Verification of the calculations made by the author.
10. Appropriate use of the International System of Units.
11. The scientific rigor and conclusions must be substantiated. If the manuscript can be improved with other methods or tests, the reviewer can suggest them.
12. Sufficient and updated references. The author must give credit to the relevant contributions of other authors.
About the review
There are four possible types of review for a manuscript, described below:1. Accepted in its current form . The manuscript does not need modifications and can be published in its current state.
2. Accepted with minimal adjustments . The manuscript can be published if small modifications are made according to the comments of the reviewers. The evaluation committee of the Journal verifies the corrections. It does not require a new evaluation by the peer reviewers.
3. Correct and reevaluate . The manuscript is not recommended for publication in its current state. The authors should correct it according to the comments of the reviewers, who will reevaluate the manuscript to verify the quality and that the suggested modifications were taken care of.
4. Rejected . The publication of the manuscript is not recommended. The causes of the rejection that will be sent to the author must be argued, but there is no possibility of a reevaluation. The rejection review is unappealable.